The problem with an "obviousness" rejection as compared to a riror art...IMO...is that the obviousness stance of the examiner and his boss and the PTO for that matter is based on ...opinion....what one calls obvious another can call unrelated and so manipulated that anything can probably be construed, if enough earlier patents are found to put them all together to form our patent...

Prior art on the otherhand is to me, simply...did someone have the same idea put on paper and approve that matches in any way what we are trying to get patented...more cut and dry and discernable by the printed material and accompanying drawings.

To have our patents, licensing and the lifeblood of revenue of the company(for now) put into such a holding pattern based on one mans opinion is at best....a contrived circus of impending rejection.

IMO it is time to request oversight from the examiners direct supervisor and maybe even a change of request of the examiner...either that or the original examiner and his boss were utterly incompetent in the first issuance with these same patents in existence which did not effect our patent getting issued years ago.

Time for some "gloves off' attitude with this examiner and GAU supervisor....there is a time to be accomodating and agreeable and a time to get demanding...that time has come IMO.